Well I could understand the columnist's impression as I thought you leaned more right then left based on previous commentaty. Then I saw your post on how Rush lost Romney for you and concluded you're just scatterbrained.

You could always correct my incorrect characterization, but I guess being snippy is easier.

Journal Entry 10/2/2012:

I approached the unusual Madison creature with caution. She snipped at me, foul-tempered, as these types of political specimens often are. I retreated to safety. I still know not what it eats, or its migratory patterns. They are a dangerous breed.

I think it is fair to correct someone when they are in error; he should have just apologized, asked you how you would like to be characterized, and then asked if you'd be willing to continue with an interview.

Civility, feh. Whatever happened to humility? How hard is it to say "We got off on the wrong foot; sorry about that. Let's try this again..." Humility among our politicians and press seems pretty fucking extinct these days.

The readership of this blog is mostly conservative, there is no denying that.

Althouse is the bee keeper. Sometimes she smokes the hive before getting the honey comb, sometimes she forgets (or doesn't care) that the hive is filled with angry little drones and workers with stingers on their asses.

Where Althouse actually swings in the arc of the pendulum, who knows? I know I love it when she shakes up her readers now and then.

You certainly are not as far right as Bill Jacobson, but you don't ride the fence very well anymore. If you define yourself as other than right-leaning, what remains is that ugly middle ground of being a "moderate."

Ayn Rand had this to say about moderates:

When people call themselves moderates, ask yourself: “Moderate—about what?” Since the basic question today is freedom versus statism, or individual rights versus government controls, to be a moderate is to advocate a moderate amount of statism, a moderate amount of injustice, a moderate amount of infringement of individual rights. Surely, nobody would call that a virtue.

"You tend to want to direct people how they may discuss things. Perhaps a remnant of being an instructor."

Yeah, he could have said "I'm not one of your students" like Scott Brown.

He was fishing for a quote. Something he wanted to attach my name to instead of him just saying it. He flagged that he couldn't be trusted by claiming to know my blog but displaying what is — to my eye — not getting it.

All of my friends on the Right think I am a pinko, all my friends on the Left think I am a reactionary and my crazy friends think I am nuts. When you do not fit into a box it causes a lot of confusion among the True Believers.

Pragmatist said...All of my friends on the Right think I am a pinko, all my friends on the Left think I am a reactionary and my crazy friends think I am nuts. When you do not fit into a box it causes a lot of confusion among the True Believers.

Humility is not the way she rose up to the top,Though using misdirection she threw hillbillies the sopThat maybe just perhaps she dug their crude benighted trip:A fool assumed...she puffed right up and cut him, snip snip snip.

Liberals think I'm right wing and conservatives think I'm a liberal of a not particularly virulent type.

That could be averaged out, not putting me in the middle, but somewhat conservative. But I think liberals have a way of shunning, getting hysterical, and viewing conservatives as toxic. Therefore, I think the evidence shows I'm right in the middle.

Dealing with journalists is one of the more painful parts of being in the music biz.

On the music biz side, journalists are even more inclined to assume you agree with them about everything, even before they meet you or have any type of discussion with you. You must be an extreme leftist, they assume, or why would you be in the music biz.

Even more off-putting is their assumption that you are eager for their help.

I'm familiar with your blog and I certainly take the impression you skew more right than left, even if not dogmatically so.

In any case, if does seem pointless to respond in such curt manner to someone who admits they're unfamiliar with your blog. Why respond at all?

If you felt he warranted any response you could have suggested that he take some time and read back through several weeks' worth of the blog (or longer) to become more familiar with your point of view in the event this might change his perceptions before he poses any questions to you. Or, you could simply have corrected him by stating your own view of your views.

Pragmatist said...All of my friends on the Right think I am a pinko, all my friends on the Left think I am a reactionary and my crazy friends think I am nuts. When you do not fit into a box it causes a lot of confusion among the True Believers.

Amen, brother! or sister!

^^^^this.

And thanks to whoever it was that gave me the mental pic of Inga as a lil' girl.

I don't think that calling out nonsense from a right wing gasbag disqualifies one from swinging to the right politically. I'm not a daily reader but I've always identified Ms. A as more conservative than moderate.

He was fishing for a quote. Something he wanted to attach my name to instead of him just saying it. He flagged that he couldn't be trusted by claiming to know my blog but displaying what is — to my eye — not getting it.

But you know yourself better than any reader could possibly know you. You have an image of yourself that is important to you (we all do!) and you know what you are thinking when you write. That someone else does not see you as you see yourself is not really that person's failing. It's just the way human interaction happens.

You cut him off rather than correct him, which makes me wonder if what you really did not want was to be classified as "conservative" in a publication (again). In other words, you know you were a little snippy, and you were snippy with purpose.

I have noticed that journalistic bias has become unabashed and overt. The feedback mechanism in society intended to promote ethical behavior seems to have been circumvented.

Actually, there has been a dissociation from experiencing and even acknowledging individual risk. This is the foundation for the progressive corruption of individuals, institutions, culture, and journalists in a society.

Does the latent content of snip refer back to castration or gardening? I think it depends more on the snippee rather than the snipper. When cultivating a classroom discussion, it's a way of nourishing growth. When addressing someone equal or higher on the status pole, it's not the weeds that get snipped. A position in the middle is ideal for this type of snipping.....Men snipe. Women snip.

Liberals think I'm right wing and conservatives think I'm a liberal of a not particularly virulent type.

That could be averaged out, not putting me in the middle, but somewhat conservative. But I think liberals have a way of shunning, getting hysterical, and viewing conservatives as toxic. Therefore, I think the evidence shows I'm right in the middle.

The thing is that you're a sensible person surrounded by less sensible people. In a Blue environment -- and it doesn't get much Bluer than Madison -- you look Red. In a Red environment, you would certainly look Blue.

Proof that this is mostly optical illusion is that you manage to retain the readers you do. I'm not sure everyone realizes how rare a comment section like this is, where there is wide ideological diversity and reasonable civility. The Volokh Conspiracy has one (well, depending on the blogger and the topic -- when David Bernstein posts anything remotely related to Israel, things get very ugly very fast). Megan McArdle has done it, though with her move to the Daily Beast she now has to start almost from scratch again. Just when she had nearly gotten the Atlantic commentariat up to the level of the one at her solo blog, yet.

Don't you have to be right-wing to listen to that much Rush? Or to ref the Drudge site that often?

Uh...no??? I spedn quite a bit of time at HuffPo, and more than a fwe lefty blogs. I'd say you just have to be curious, and unafraid to have to "suffer" through a viewpoint that's different than yours. Are you implying that's too high a standard for you? Because that's sure what I'm inferring...

phx said... Sure, average out the four liberal regulars against the overwhelming majority of conservatives. Where does anyone think that imbalance comes from anyway?

It is true that most blogs are so relentlessy left conservatives consider any blog willing to discuss the issues honestly a welcome home. It's revealing that the left interprets this as a reason to attack.

phx said.... . .Sure, average out the four liberal regulars against the overwhelming majority of conservatives. Where does anyone think that imbalance comes from anyway?

As a conservative leaning libertarian I would argue that Althouse is now essentially a moderate who wishes she were liberal but the liberals have left her behind by going so far left they have emerged into fascism/insanity. So, Althouse seems to be more of a 70's liberal for whom the wisdom of age and experience has tempered the most extreme and unrealistic of her liberal views though still there her sympathies lay.

The reason I think I and a great many rightish types read her blog is because while we often disagree with her she is intellectually honest. It says a great deal about the left, I think, that that quality makes Althouse almost unique in the blogging world today. Further, I would say that it says about her commentariat that we want to engage and understand liberalism and that this is a good outlet for that desire. Similarly, it seems clear that she wants to engage and understand the right and displays respectful discourse -- though from the professorial perspective of above -- in conversational questioning and sharpening of our views.

As iron sharpens iron I appreciate that tension between our viewpoints and reading Althouse has given me reactions from strengthening my views while have a greater understanding of the liberal mindset to alternatively moderating my views when she makes some great points.

I think that if certain journalists had approached her with the above understanding her reply would have been less snippy (though still possibly corrective :-)

Columnist: You'd be Ann Althouse, out of Wisconsin...unlike alof of UW-Madison profs, you tend to swi...

Althouse: That's right. I've snipped trolls and OT'ers. I've snipped just about everything that walks or crawled or wasted space on my blog. And I'm here to snip *you* for presumin' what I believe._____

Columnist: I don't deserve to get snipped like this. I was writing a column.

As a conservative leaning libertarian I would argue that Althouse is now essentially a moderate who wishes she were liberal but the liberals have left her behind by going so far left they have emerged into fascism/insanity.

I'm sorry but if you're posting a five-paragraph comment and you would like me to read and consider it or even argue with it, don't start out with something so insulting. You're insulting my intelligence and needlessly demeaning your opponents.

Show respect. You known what Churchill said: Just because you have to kill a man doesn't mean you shouldn't be polite about it.

Ann Althouse said...Liberals think I'm right wing and conservatives think I'm a liberal of a not particularly virulent type.

That could be averaged out, not putting me in the middle, but somewhat conservative. But I think liberals have a way of shunning, getting hysterical, and viewing conservatives as toxic. Therefore, I think the evidence shows I'm right in the middle.

10/2/12 11:58 AM

Whats in the middle is usually roadkill. I suspect that fiscally conservative and socially liberal is leading you to a path that you might feel uncomfortable with, the outer edge of libertarianism. But then again what do I know?

You did correct his incorrect characterization. Maybe he's explaining why he's being snippy. It's easier. If not, why the fuck would you have to defend anything to him in particular? He can read/not read your blog like the rest of us.

How many other UW-Madison profs are friendly with, and frequently linked by, Glenn Reynolds? How many other UW-Madison profs cite Rush Limbaugh or even take his comments seriously? How many post images from the Drudge Report? How many others have put in writing their disillusionment with Obama?

Compared to other UW-Madison professors, how far off was his characterization? I bet a lot of people reading your blog would make the same characterization.

I'd read it as snippy, but sometimes that's how it comes off when in the form of e-mail. I've watched more than my share of Althouse Bloggingheads (do another one!), and I can imagine a look of bemusement while responding to the columnist.

Well, I see your point. I wasn't really responding to you but to your point and to the journalist. Your comment was just the jumping off point.

However, I would view the Kos types as being in insanity. See: California. It is insanity to think that is going to end well and yet continue on that course. If you identify with that trend and taking that road then I think you insane. If you don't identify then I am not talking about you.

As to fascism, I have just come off of reading this. Again, if you think restricting speech is good, as much of the left is beginning to argue, then I think you fascist. If you don't identify with that then I wasn't talking about you.

That said I did indeed quote you so I apologize for implicitly putting you in with those who think California is going the right direction and would like to restrict speech.

She's not snippy, she's a coward. Professor Althouse, or Ann as we dasn't call her to her face, is someone who is happy to tell you what she's not , but not so happy to tell you what she is, because then she would have to own it. Somehow that would lift off the mask.

Robert Cook is the same way. He loves to disagree with any characterizations, but won't actually ID himself or his views. Cedarford is the same way. Most of the worst people on the blog are this way. All squids hiding in a cloud of ink. Chickenshits.

Snippy? Um, yeah! On the other hand, it was an ill-phrased question posed in an over-familiar way, and she had no reason or incentive to make things any easier on him. It's hard to blame her, given who she is, and who he is.

In fact, she got him to fuck off pretty easily, without any further digging, harassment, insistence on a quote which she might have been loath to give even if he asked her with suitable honey.

"Sometimes she seems to swing to the right to me as well.Is that so awful to say?"

There's swing and then there's swing. Althouse does sometimes swing, but she doesn't trend as a swinger. If you start from the premise that she's a liberal who is convinced by some conservative arguments and issues, that's fair. If you start from the premise that she's conservative-that she consistently swings--it's a mischaracterization.

If then, her being conservative is a premise, that's missing a lot of what she says around here. And, giving how journalists do fish for quotes from the representative Other, it seems right to resist playing that game.

That's the funny thing about the whole brouhaha of who Althouse is voting for. It seems to be that the default is always the Democrat. So, of course she would drift toward voting for Obama--especially as Obama represents a lot of policy choices on social issues and such that Althouse seems to agree with.

The right premise to start with is that Althouse is a liberal in a liberal enclave, resisting the sheep mentality of her context, and so particularly questions the liberal status quo, and in questioning sometimes finds liberals are wrong or misguided.

If you're a conservative, Althouse is not on your side. But she's willing to listen.

I knew the term "snippy" reminded me of something -- of one of the reasons I like the man, George W. Bush so much:

'Circumstances,' [Gore] said, once through to the Governor of Texas, 'have changed. I need to withdraw my concession until the situation is clear'. 'Let me make sure I understand, Mr Vice-President,' said Bush. 'You're calling me back to retract your concession'. 'There's no need to get snippy about it,' said Gore. Bush replied that his brother Jeb was the Governor in charge of the Florida ballot. Gore's voice retorted: 'It may surprise you but your younger brother is not the ultimate authority on this.' 'Mr Vice-President,' said Bush's voice, 'You need to do what you have to do.'

So, before you accuse me of being snippy, Mr. ManBearJournalist, take a look at your own scissorhands.

Calls from journalists are not social calls. They're doing a job. Taking a call from a journalist is like taking a sales call; you don't owe them, you're doing them a favor.

As a former reporter, his response had all the marks of a guy who really didn't want to have to talk to the person he called. Now he can just say "She refused comment" and write what he was going to write anyway.

Curious George said..."karrde said...Out of curiosity, what question did the journalist attempt to ask?"

Yes, forget the reporters response. What was the question?

The question was something along the lines of: "I presume you don't like people you work with who have different political orientations from you own. I'm lazily working on a column that will make me look smarter than the Lefties you are forced to work with. Since I think I'm also smarter than you, Ann, can you give me a quote which bashes your colleagues, makes me look sharper than I really am, and all the while lets me sit on my lazy ass?

"If you're a conservative, Althouse is not on your side. But she's willing to listen."

That's always been my take. Of course the vast majority of liberals don't like to listen to opposing views (or even acknowledge their legitimacy) and so they certainly don't like other liberals listening. It upsets their reality you see, so they must accuse her of being right-wing or their heads might explode.

"Meade said...The question was something along the lines of: "I presume you don't like people you work with who have different political orientations from you own. I'm lazily working on a column that will make me look smarter than the Lefties you are forced to work with. Since I think I'm also smarter than you, Ann, can you give me a quote which bashes your colleagues, makes me look sharper than I really am, and all the while lets me sit on my lazy ass?"

I don't think your response was snippy at all. This is a classic example of the "journalist" starting with a narrative, and he expected you to go along with it.

I think what you did was refreshing. I wish politicians (especially on the right) would correct these loaded questions and mischaracterizations right from the word go, but alas, that would require one have a pair.

"You tend to want to direct people how they may discuss things. Perhaps a remnant of being an instructor."

Of course, she does. I've not met a teacher at any education level who doesn't - it's what teachers do, it's what they've trained and studied to do.

My brother is a retired teacher and sports coach. He lives his life telling people what to do, how and what to think, how to act and perform.

Using professional training in personal lives is often impossible to stop as it becomes part of who and what a person is and unfortunately, in the case of teachers, can appear overbearing and manipulative.

With a single word, "discuss," the good professor has garnered over 130 comments from commenters who've mostly not even questioned the blatant order to discuss a personal email as if this were an exam.

That's an entirely fair characterization of Althouse based on this blog for the past two years in which posts critical of Obama and his policies far outweigh other political posts.

I'd say that's factually incorrect; Ann has written far more in the last two years about WI politics than she has about Obama. I mean, the coverage of Occupy and of the Walker recall effort was extensive (unequaled, really, by any other journalist, paid or not).

Though your gist is correct -- her political posts have been mostly to the right of Dane County, though I'd say to the left of half or more of the electorate.

So does that mean that she -- who voted for Obama four years ago, and blogged in detail about why she did it -- "swings right," as measured by Madison, or "swings left," as measured by most other places in her own state, not to mention other states?

We know that Althouse is not a left-winger and we know that she does not want to be labeled right-wing - so that leaves the safe and secure middle, which stands for and asserts nothing. Ayn Rand turns on the flood lights in order for us to better see these "moderates."

When people call themselves moderates, ask yourself: “Moderate—about what?” Since the basic question today is freedom versus statism, or individual rights versus government controls, to be a moderate is to advocate a moderate amount of statism, a moderate amount of injustice, a moderate amount of infringement of individual rights. Surely, nobody would call that a virtue.

Hey Penguin, go look on some conservative blogs (try powerline for starters) and see the ads that are placed there. You can't tell the content of the blog from the advertising. Here's a clue. Advertisers are trying to persuade the audience, build the market for their principles.

If you're a conservative, Althouse is not on your side. But she's willing to listen

This makes her worse than a mere conservative; she is a potential apostate (on specific issues. Even if she can resist this temptation (her faith is strong!), she is risking exposing liberal "thinking" to people who might learn how to respond.

The thing is that you're a sensible person surrounded by less sensible people

I've always thought there was a fair streak of contrarianism, perhaps fueled by an irritation with sloppy thinking, which leads her to postulate positions in oppostion to received wisdom or inelegant pronouncements. Like a teacher, she is grading (not on a curve) and red-penciling flaws.

Maybe the columnist was a jerk or was someone you dealt with in the past. If that was the case, he deserved it, and you were justified in being snippy and rude. If they start it, they get what's coming to 'em. But then again, maybe he was someone who didn't really know you and was approaching you with honest motives. If that's the case, you were unjustifiably snippy and rude.

Context is key.

Sorry Professor. 90+% of the time I don't have any problems with your posts or interactions with people. Your short handling of Kevin Barrett was even more blunt, but all the more deserved because of his awful character. This guy, though? Well, without context there's no way to tell. But without context, the default presumption is that he's a well meaning person, and if that's the case, your response was off-putting.

You like to fool some foolish people by occasionaly cloaking some of you posts in conservative trappings but you a dyed in the wool liberal Madison lefty!

Pro-abortion. Pro-affirmative action. Pro the worst excesses of the homosexual agenda without ever a demur. Anti-religious freedom by supporting the attacks against those who refuse to lay down before the assualt on their religious values.

thanks. That paraphrase of the question may be a little hard to revert to the actual question of the journalist. However, the question looks loaded.

Thus, the decision to reject the question appears defensible, and probably quite intelligent.

@Curious George,

I don't think snippy is an accurate description of Ann's response.

The word pedantic might be accurate...but I would not think that a denigration in this case. Pedantry by a law professor is not a surprise.

I count the don't be snippy response as a failure of expression on the part of the journalist.

Is accuracy in use of adjectives not considered normal among journalists anymore? Even in quickly-composed emails?

Per Ann's answer: I don't think she did wrong. If I had been in her shoes, I might have responded with a bland response, something like:

This message must have reached me in error. If you intended to address a law-professor from UW who blogs and who considers themselves distinctly right-of-center, you have sent your message to the wrong person.

Perhaps if you point me to the blog in question, we can get your message to its intended recipient.

But my personal communications style is different.

Ann's response fits her style. It apparently had an effect that wasn't far from its intended effect.

To come to a different conclusion, I would have to assume that this reporter (or reporters in general) are somehow deserving of a great deal of respect from everyone. Even if the journalist doesn't treat his sources and their words with respect.

I don't assume that. If you do, then we will have a hard time agreeing about Ann's response to the journalist.

Professor Althouse...is someone who's happy to tell you what she's not, but not so happy to tell you what she is, because then she would have to own it.

Thank you, Nichevo. I've been groping for the longest time with what it is about her that gets my goat and there it is in a nutshell.

I was starting to fall into that counter puncher stance as a young man when my Dad brought me up short: "Have the courage to stake out a position and own it. And have the courage to disown it if you're proven wrong. Just don't be a tear down. It's unworthy."

It's a tough standard to live up to. Not all of us are aware it exists.

All he had to do was look at her Wiki page and know, like a great many people, she is a mix of Conservative and Liberal.

You get the feeling this guy gets his info from Hatman and shilol.

PS Oop forever gets a knot in her bustle because I tease Ann about a fictitious predilection toward dominance, but, from some of the thing he/she/it says here, it sounds like dominatrix is more his/her/its thing.

It's a fair question,considering Althouse SEEMS in some ways to be libertarian or at least conservative in some ways. But then again she voted for Obama. But then again her voting for Obama was not based on any policy decisions (either right or left). At least not stated.She's very coy about who she's going to vote for but intially professed positive thought for Sarah Palin during the last election. She said that Mccain lost her because he wasn't authentically conservative enough and she seems to be anti unions in Wisonconsin> Then again she is pro choice and pro abortion, and again is suggesting that she will vote for Obama again.

There is meat for both sides to chew on and find thngs in her position that would suggest she is on both sides. Nuanced, idiosyncratic or schizophrenic depending on your view.

I think its fair for someone to assume you are right wing. No need to be snippy or catty because he finds things that are suggestive of non lefty thought in some of your posts. If there is an assumption that he's made, he's not the only one. Why not clarify for him (and the rest of us) where in fact you do stand.

"Liberals think I'm right wing and conservatives think I'm a liberal of a not particularly virulent type.

That could be averaged out, not putting me in the middle, but somewhat conservative. But I think liberals have a way of shunning, getting hysterical, and viewing conservatives as toxic. Therefore, I think the evidence shows I'm right in the middle."

The hero of her own story, Althouse. You can take that to the bank every time.

Only hystericals and overreactors could find a blogger right wing who: repeatedly aligns with conservatives on economic and foreign policy issues. Because, you know, she's a "social liberal." And that balances everything out, you see.

Only hystericals and overreactors could find a blogger right wing who: repeatedly aligns with conservatives on economic and foreign policy issues. Because, you know, she's a "social liberal." And that balances everything out, you see.

Actually, I don't think AA blogs much on "foreign policy issues." Economics, a bit, as in "this state is practically broke, and can't we please try to find a fix?" (I paraphrase; Althouse didn't say that). Nearly everything here that could be construed as political has been about "social policy," write correctly -- that is, about how the State of Wisconsin ought to be run.

Honestly, harrogate, I think you're conflating Althouse with Reynolds. He actually sort of fits your description, as a fiscal-conservative, free-marketer, social-liberal hawk. That makes him a right-winger. A guy like Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee -- a social-conservative, protectionist, fiscal-liberal dove -- is also a right-winger, because this is the kind of test on which you fail if you get any question wrong.

The journalist probably expected to talk to someone who would be thrilled, just THRILLED, to talk to a real reporter and hopefully see her name in the PAPER!! The person who clips all her press and pastes it in a nice little bound portfolio.

Bullshit. The history of affection for Bush and alignment with his foreign policy are intertwined. Remember the whole I-voted-for-Obama-so-Democrats-would-take ownership-of-the-war-on-terror narrative?

"Economics, a bit, as in 'this state is practically broke, and can't we please try to find a fix?' (I paraphrase; Althouse didn't say that)."

Again, please. The alignment with conservatives on economic policies, not only in Wisconsin but nationwide, is an even more stable characteristic than foreign policy. A gross distortion to characterize her policy as "we're broke, let's fix it."

"Honestly, harrogate, I think you're conflating Althouse with Reynolds. He actually sort of fits your description, as a fiscal-conservative, free-marketer, social-liberal hawk. That makes him a right-winger."

Well. Perhaps this blog is a bit less hawkish than Reynolds or some others. I'll cede that.

"A guy like Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee -- a social-conservative, protectionist, fiscal-liberal dove -- is also a right-winger, because this is the kind of test on which you fail if you get any question wrong."

Buchanan and Huckabee are so extreme in their positions (on a variety of fronts), that it is no wonder that only fools will claim either.

Paddy O- fine, but this guy says he is familiar with her blog, not that he has spent a great deal of time analyzing Althouse over the years.

Regardless, Meade's paraphrase of the question makes it clear Althouse was snippy because she wanted to get rid of the guy. Althouse's comment about the left treating conservatives as toxic gives us a good indication as to why she wouldn't want to be written of as a conservative for all the liberals in Madison to see (I get that. I feel the same way in LA)

I don't know, MayBee. My first impression was that she was ticked that he made an assumption about her from a cursory reading of her blog. Liberals especially like to make assumptions about conservatives or classic librerals and I know that annoys me.So the dumb ass set himself up for a snippy.